Recommendations from Javier, 15 to 30% rotor submergence is common.

This ties in with

the info I sent earlier I believe so I would recommend using this as a starting point for
scenario simulations and varying around this range. I would also say it is worth considering
energy requirements associated with different sumbergence values which will increase as
does submergence
There are a number of sources of error within this model that can be considered. The first
significant set of these is associated with the implementation of the NDHA model parameter
values. Each of these nearly 60 or so model constants has an associated confidence interval
with an upper and lower bound estimate that was calculated during the NDHA model
calibration process. Since the model was coded with the mean values of these parameters it is
important to consider the impact this would have on the error of the model output.

This leads to a potential method of quantifying the NDHA constants contribution to the
model output by conducting a set of upper and lower bound scenario tests. During the lower
bound test the lower bound values for all the constants is used and the model output is
measured. Similarly, for the upper bound test the upper bound values for all these constants
and the model output analysed. This would give the full range of values that the model output
could realistically give with the given model parameter confidence range. Studying this range
and where the mean value model output lies in this interval will give a good estimate for the
model uncertainty. However, due to time constraints it was not possible to complete these
test scenarios.

Another source of potential error is in the method chosen to implement the liquid-gas mass
transfer. In the final implementation it was determined that the scaling factor and the control
volume are linked. In order to allow analysis it was decided to fix the scaling and to vary the
control volume. In doing this we have limited the sources of error only to the process of
estimating the control volume. In the process of estimating the control volume the assumption
that the average concentration of DO surface of the

It is important that up till now only the individual contributions of the various aspects of the
model have been considered. This is because it is hard to estimate how these sources of error
will interact and affect the final error value. In order to estimate how much total error this
modelling approach contains it would be necessary to evaluate the model response using an
experimental data set. This is further elaborated on in the further work section.